The Party of Hate Crimes

The House passed federal hate crimes legislation expanding the definition of a hate crime to gender or disability or sexual orientation. The Senate plans to to the same. This bill was first proposed in 1998, in the aftermath of Matthew Shepard. But the White House plans to veto because the far-right religious base that hates the gay wants to protect criminals (I thought that's what liberals do) who act on their discriminatory rhetoric.

Under intense pressure from conservative religious organizations to derail the bill, the White House on Thursday called it "unnecessary and constitutionally questionable," issuing the latest in a string of veto threats aimed at the congressional Democratic majority [...]

Opponents argue that the bill would create special classes of federally protected crime victims. "If someone commits a crime, they should be punished for that crime. Period," said Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.). "Today the Democratic majority has chosen to end equality under the law."

Added Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas): "Justice should be blind to the personal traits of victims."

Some bill opponents also say the measure could stifle religious expression. They derided the measure as "thought crimes" legislation, contending that a pastor who preached against homosexuality could be charged with a hate crime if one of his church members committed a hate crime. The bill's supporters dispute that, saying the measure preserves 1st Amendment rights.

Far be it from me to expect anyone to read the bill, but clearly it cites action and deed and not thought. And if a group in society is targeted on the basis of a particular trait, they ought to be prosecuted on that trait as well. Law enforcement groups all support it, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

We look to this country as some beacon of freedom, and one of the hallmarks of that is respect for minority rights. We're in this "greatest struggle in the history of civilization" with fundamentalist nations that stone women and execute gays publicly. Shouldn't we offer a full-throated differentiation?